MAYA RAM SHARMA Vs. H C ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Competent Authority (Slum) dated 29th January 1973 whereby I the application filed by the respondent for instituting eviction proceedings against the petitioner was allowed The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a portion of house no. 1633, Gali Krishna Sohan Ganj, Subji Mandi, Delhi comprising of two rooms, one store and two kitchens on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 12.00 since the year 1942 In the year 1971respondents 2 and 3 moved an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act seeking permission to institute proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the premises It was averred in the petition that the family of the petitioner consisted of 9 members including five sons, two daughters. They were living in commonsality. The two sons who were employed were earning more than Rs. 1000.00 per month as salary, the daughter was earning more than Rs. 400 per month and son's wife was earning more than Rs. 500.00 per month. The petitioner himself was drawing more tean Rs. 800.00 per month from two places. The petitioner was leading a luxurious life and owns luxury items like electric fans, radio, transistor, steel almirahs, sofa set, other furniture and three cycles and, therefore, the petitioner was a man of means and even if he was evicted be was not likely to create/slum because he would be in a position to procure alternative accommodation. This averment made by respondent no. 2 in the petition was denied by the petitioner herein and it was stated that the total income of the family including that of the sons and the daughter in law was Rs. 576,20 pet month. It was averred that out of the five sons, only one son was working in the Lok Sabha Secretariat at a net salary of Rs. 295.00 per month and the other sons were students and not earning anything. The daughter in law Mrs, Sneh Sharma was getting an honorarium of Rs. 120.00 as a Craft Teacher and the petitioner himself was earning only Rs. 215.00 per month. ( The petitioner filed the salary certificate ) from the Lok Sabha Secretariat showing the net salary of his son Ram Parkash Sharma, a pay certificate issued by Deputy Organiser, GrahKalyan Kendra showing the honorarium of the daughter in law Smt. Sneh Sharma and a pay certificate issued by M/s Modern Optical Company Pvt. Ltd. showing that the petitioner was getting Rs, 215.00 per month as salary. The Competent Authority however disbelieved the case of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not come to the court with clean hands because he had not filed affidavits of the other sons in support of his case. The Competent Authority further held that the petitioner was a man of means and if evicted would be in a position to have alternative accommodation without creating slum.

(2.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the other sons of the petitioner were students, there was no necessity of filing their affidavits in court showing their income. Learned counsel submitted that Competent Authority failed to give any categorical finding regarding the financial status of the petitioner/ and did not come to any precise conclusion regarding the monthly income of the petitioner and since the Competent Authority had failed to give specific finding, the order granting permission is bad, Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court inC.M.(M)102 of 1970 decided on 23rd April 1972. Learned counsel further submitted that the Competent Authority wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioner possessed luxury items like cycles etc. He stated that the petitioner's total income including the income of his family members was only Rs. 576.20 per month and the items stated to be in his house were not luxury items but were essential items and these items would not .indicate that the petitioner was leading a luxurious life as held by the Competent Authority.

(3.) On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for respondents 1 & 3 that even if the case of the petitioner is accepted and the income of the petitioner was only Rs, 576.20 per month, the petitioner would have been in a position to get alternative accommodation of 264 sq, feet for Rs. 92.40 and, therefore, on the own showing of the petitioner he was not likely to create sium.